al-Aulaqi is right: Jihad is obligatory -- not just for Muslims, but for all Americans

According to the article linked above, Muslim cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi has been quoted as saying: "I have come to the conclusion that jihad against America is a duty for me, as for every Muslim who can do it." Just for having allegedly expressed such sentiments, al-Aulaqi, a US citizen, has been put on a CIA hit list. There is not a shred of evidence that he has ever committed a crime. Simply because he is an eloquent Muslim leader speaking the truth about the criminal Zio-American war on Islam, and Muslims' religious obligation to resist it, the war criminals want to kill him.

By putting out a hit on al-Aulaqi, a US citizen, the war criminals have murdered our Constitution, which clearly states that no-one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and enshrines the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers under a presumption of innocence. Since the misprision of treason law requires us to report evidence of treason to the relevant authorities, you are obliged to report the CIA and the Obama Administration as traitors for this flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights. If they cannot be brought to justice due to being protected by other traitors, it is your duty to use any means necessary to restore the Constitution. That includes, of course, armed struggle -- which was how we got the Constitution in the first place.

This is my opinion as an informed American citizen, a Muslim, and an Islamic Studies scholar. It explains why I am waging a truth jihad fi sabili Llah on behalf of Islam, the world's Muslims, international law, the U.S. Constitution, and the future of humanity. (I am not a traditional Islamic scholar, and would be interested to hear from Islamic scholars who feel that resisting the current war on Islam is not obligatory.)

If you don't like my opinion, or al-Aulaqi's, you are free to disagree -- whether by leaving a comment, or by targeting me with a killer drone--the ultimate coward's weapon.

Got that, traitors and war criminals? If you want to kill al-Aulaqi, you're going to have to go through me.

4 comments:

Kevin, I always get the gut feeling that "armed struggle" would be playing into their hands. Then they could roll out and implement the Police State, full stop, making our present domestic situation feel like liberty.

What means do we have involving something other than aggression against the aggressors?

I look at the civil rights movement. Its outcome where a large group of like-minded people, through selfless sacrifice, and civil disobedience broke down traditional institutions and state sponsored racism.

Don't we still have the option ala Martin Luther King Jr., to seek justice for all people without utilizing the same tactics our government employs against manufactured foreign or domestic threats?

I'm against "aggression against the aggressors" and in favor of SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST THE AGGRESSORS. In my opinion, on 9/11/01 those aggressors crossed the line beyond which we are obliged to use force against them in any way that has a reasonable chance of success. Obviously most conceivable uses of force would not have a reasonable chance of success, and thus should not be used. Specifically, attacks on ordinary civilians (which are prohibited by Islam and by international law) are not only wrong, but counterproductive. So I agree that nonviolent tactics are generally the best way to wage jihad against the 9/11 criminals. Citizens of countries under foreign military occupation, however, are unlikely to get very far with nonviolent tactics, and thus have every right to resist occupation by military means-- a right that is recognized under international law. If Aulaqi has been put on a hit list merely for supporting this universal human right, and for pointing out that Muslims are obliged under today's circumstances to wage jihad (which can include nonviolent forms of struggle) against criminal occupations of Muslim countries, I am in complete agreement with him, and feel morally obliged to stand up and say so.

In my humble opinion, the only approach is passive aggressive resistance. Everyone has the power to resist by just saying "no" to the present neglect of our country and bring it to its knees by putting a monkey wrench in the works, when and where possible. It's the small things which can push our unstable "leaders" over the edge. I suspect, they are more upset and "paranoid" about the lack of response to the census than we imagine, for example. It's their style and explains why there's always an overreaction. They're well aware, people of conscience would be outraged by what they've done, e.g., Bush the Elder's statement about running us down in the streets if the people knew what we've done. It's the drug and human traffic and weapons dealing where the obscene profits can still be made which weighs heavily upon their minds. It's been a long run and they wonder when the jig will be up? I predict, our leaders will become so unpopular because of the agenda they have to follow as prescribed by the oligarchs, in the end, the present "state" will simply fall away. People will cease to respond like excusing themselves from the table set with a particularly noxious meal. No thanks.

About Me

I'm the author of Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters; Truth Jihad; A Guide to Mysterious San Francisco; and editor of 9/11 and American Empire v.2, and have taught Arabic, Islamic Studies, French, American Civilization and others subjects. Widely regarded as the world's leading Muslim 9/11 truth activist (for what that's worth) I spent 2006-2008 as the only talk show host featured on all three leading patriot radio networks (GCN, RBN, and WTPRN). I ran for Congress in Wisconsin's 3rd District in 2008: http://www.barrettforcongress.us
Currently I'm working on a couple of book projects...